From Last Supper to Communion - is it valid?

[cloudyday2]

What I hope to discuss is the historical Last Supper (if any) and everything connected to it.
For example:
- Was the Last Supper a Passover Seder?
- Are the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper consistent?
- Did the earliest Christians have a Communion ceremony, and what did it mean to them?
- Etc. (add your own topics)

 

[Albion]

What I hope to discuss is the historical Last Supper (if any) and everything connected to it.
For example:
- Was the Last Supper a Passover Seder?

It was intended to be one, but whether it was one is a question. There is reason to think that it was missing an element (the lamb) or that Christ, intending to make it into a new ceremony, was that lamb.

- Are the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper consistent?

Yes

- Did the earliest Christians have a Communion ceremony, and what did it mean to them?

It appears that they did. What it means was certainly that it kept Christ alive -- in some sense -- among them, that it was special and closed to unbaptized persons including those who were only studying to be Christian, that it commemorated Christ's passion and death, and that it was separate from the fellowship meal that accompanied the worship service.

 

[~Anastasia~]

From what I have read and found, yes, there was celebration of the Mystical Supper / Holy Communion / the Eucharist quite early - almost immediately - in the early Church.

Not a lot of early speculation went on (and we don't speculate the details to this day as a result), but it was believed to be the Body and Blood of the Lord (of course this in a mystical sense). Those who infiltrated Christian communion as spies actually thought it was a cannibalistic sect. Of course it was not (God forbid!) but by this we can see that it was celebrated, and with what understanding.

Speaking of spies and infiltration, it was indeed private from an early time. Even those who were preparing to be baptized were not permitted to be present.

The meaning of the word often translated as fellowship (Koinonia) actually means Eucharistic fellowship, and thus implies in the early Church agreement on all the essential doctrines of the Church. We who are the Body of Christ were intended to be one, even "as the Father and Christ are one". So the idea of unity, fellowship, community, and all being parts of one another and of Christ was/is tied into this celebration of the Sacrament for us.

 

[cloudyday2]

Apparently Jews use bread and wine in a prayer to commemorate a friend/relative who is facing impending death. I'm having difficulty finding a link describing this theory. I believe it is similar to a Kiddush or Kaddish or Chavurah
Kiddush - Wikipedia
Kaddish - Wikipedia
Chavurah - Wikipedia

Another clue is the order or bread and wine and the prayers specified in the Didache. The order in Luke differs from Mark and Matthew. Probably the Didache is the most accurate, because its focus is liturgical. Also many scholars believe portions of the Didache are older than the synoptic gospels.
Didache

The Didache makes no mention of body or blood in its Eucharist prayers which is interesting. Instead the Didache says the wine symbolizes the messianic vine of descent from King David and the bread symbolizes the gathering of Jews from all over the world as wheat is gathered to make the bread. Does St. Paul describe the Eucharist as consuming Christ's body and blood? Obviously some of the gospels describe the Eucharist as body and blood.

Interestingly the Ebionites used water instead of wine and their Eucharist was annual around Passover time.
Ebionites - Wikipedia

 

[cloudyday2]

Another issue is the purpose of the Eucharist in the established Christian Church in later centuries.

When I was Eastern Orthodox the "sin" of participating in communion at a non-Orthodox church was compared to sexual relations outside of marriage. It seems clear to me that one purpose of the Eucharist in later centuries was to clearly divide between the "orthodox" and the "heterodox". The Nicene Creed precedes communion and is designed to exclude people with unacceptable Christology. When a person offends the church he/she is often barred from participating in communion.

The current issues over inter-communion between different denominations seems to reflect the same thinking - separating the orthodox from the heterodox.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Hmmmmmm.

I'm not sure of comparing non-Orthodox Sacraments to adultery. I suppose there is somewhat a picture there, but I've never heard anyone explain it that way.

Rather than some kind of metaphor, I prefer the way I have always heard it explained. The Sacraments are administered by the Church, and are a way of us sharing communion with one another. All Sacraments - baptism, the Eucharist, Confession, holy matrimony. If we receive a sacrament somewhere other than the Orthodox Church, by our actions we are in effect uniting ourselves to that body. And since we are not in full communion with non-Orthodox churches, that is in essence choosing to separate ourselves from the Church. We excommunicate ourselves by our actions. This can always be healed by Confession - one can always renter the Church.

No one should ever be barred from communion for offending the Church. People are barred for removing themselves. We don't excommunicate except in extremely serious circumstances - like someone teaching publicly that Christ was not divine, and continuing to do so after being warned. In fact, it is a complaint made against the Church that she gives so much space for repentance and doesn't quickly excommunicate people, even when they fall into serious error.

A person can be told to refrain from communion because of a serious sin, like having killed someone. It is not a punishment though, but giving space for repentance. Everything, everything we do is aimed at healing the person from sin, and great pastoral care should be taken in this effort. It is possible if a priest has told someone to refrain from communion, that after a time, they speak to the priest, if he feels the time spent has achieved the work necessary for the soul, he can lift the rest of the time and readmit them to receive the Eucharist again.

 

[elliott95]

What I hope to discuss is the historical Last Supper (if any) and everything connected to it.
For example:
- Was the Last Supper a Passover Seder?
- Are the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper consistent?
- Did the earliest Christians have a Communion ceremony, and what did it mean to them?
- Etc. (add your own topics)

The Biblical evidence of a communion can be found in Paul's writings about abuses that were taking place at the love feast or agape meal

oremus Bible Browser : 1 Corinthians 11:17–34:17

Here is a quick link to that.

Very definitely, from his talk, we can tell very early on in Christianity, within Paul's ministry even the commemoration of the Last Supper was very much a thing very early on in the church.

As to whether there are inconsistencies in the Gospel accounts, or exactly which kind of meal that the Last Supper was in terms of Jewish ritual, from what I recall there are different interpretations and understandings of all that.
There is something very new though, in being served blood and flesh as a meal that differs very significantly from anything that had happened in Jewish ritual before that. There are not too many things that Jesus said, or not even very many things that he did, that did not have a myriad of ties and foreshadowing in previous Biblical passages and Jewish rites. There is very few of his words that do not have previous references to Scripture, and the wisdom he shares is quintessentially Jewish wisdom.

'This is my Body, this is my Blood', is very much a new type of wine that the old wineskin could never contain. Whatever kind of Jewish ceremony or meal that was being celebrated at the Last Supper is almost irrelevant, since the Last Supper introduced something new and unprecedented that had not existed in any rite before that.